[PASSED] Debtor Voting Rights

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...in all the kerfuffle, GenSec dropped the ball slightly. I guess ultimately it was contingent on those of us who suspected it might be illegal to put in a Legality Challenge before this hit the floor. It's given me a lot to think about in that regard.

What ball? BA's opinion notwithstanding, I believe such a challenge would have failed. Separatist Peoples, Sciongrad, and Bananaistan are all regulars on that same Discord server which IA shared the screenshot from; while I can't say for certain that any of them positively read that particular exchange, it is certain that none of us thought the proposal had any chance of being illegal before this recent (incorrect, IMO) argument. There was no ball to drop.

If you mean that I should have posted in this forum that the resolution doesn't contradict #419, then I sort of apologize. Sort of, because nobody had brought it up in this forum that I noticed, and I'd already commented twice on the lack of enforcement provisions not being a valid argument for a repeal. But to the extent that I do apologize at all, it's because it's possible that I should have realized that shooting an idea dead on Discord doesn't kill it everywhere else.

[Separatist Peoples]

...in all the kerfuffle, GenSec dropped the ball slightly. I guess ultimately it was contingent on those of us who suspected it might be illegal to put in a Legality Challenge before this hit the floor. It's given me a lot to think about in that regard.

What ball? BA's opinion notwithstanding, I believe such a challenge would have failed. Separatist Peoples, Sciongrad, and Bananaistan are all regulars on that same Discord server which IA shared the screenshot from; while I can't say for certain that any of them positively read that particular exchange, it is certain that none of us thought the proposal had any chance of being illegal before this recent (incorrect, IMO) argument. There was no ball to drop.

If you mean that I should have posted in this forum that the resolution doesn't contradict #419, then I sort of apologize. Sort of, because nobody had brought it up in this forum that I noticed, and I'd already commented twice on the lack of enforcement provisions not being a valid argument for a repeal. But to the extent that I do apologize at all, it's because it's possible that I should have realized that shooting an idea dead on Discord doesn't kill it everywhere else.

What he said. This wasn't illegal. While one-liners are rarely legal in our experience, that does not mean they cannot be legal. And SL said it better than I could re: GAR#419.

[Battlion]

If 419 says member states are at liberty to legislate on the franchise, and the new resolution then prevents them from doing so in a certain aspect... surely that contradicts existing law? Don’t see how that conclusion isn’t reached

[Imperium Anglorum]

419 talks about being able to legislate on the franchise of inmates.

Edit: That resolution's relevant clause in full:

Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: FWIW I agree with SL, Sep, IA, and Wally here. IA's sets and subsets do not mean totally different things to Auralia's!

[Farnhamia]

So I've read the FAQs, the repeal drafts. People complaining about interpretive maladies doesn't make any sense: the text is self-evident. People complaining about enforcement mechanisms are morons, because no other WA resolution has one (except GAR#2, briefly, and the compliance mechanisms that IA himself created).

EDIT: I see these histrionics about loopholes. But nobody can tell me where they in fact are. Instead, they just scream loopholes like a broken record.

You can make your point without calling people names. This is an Ominous Loom (patent pending) and not a red-text warning only because you have a clean record.